I was recently asked to present the World Green Building Council’s new report - The Business Case for Green Building – on behalf of the Russian Green Building Council at Mosbuild, a major construction sector event in Moscow.

As an early advocate of green thinking in this BRIC market, it was good to see a well-intentioned document aiming to appeal to commercial audiences interested in the bottom line rather than simply environmental issues. However, it was also a reminder that sustainability is still not fully understood, not just by the general public but also by some green sector professionals. Sustainability is about creating added value, and as a branding consultant, I am in the same business, creating improved commercial equity for organisations, products, services and places. This requires defining and interpreting the ethos, vision, values and business principles that will positively differentiate the brand from the competition to achieve the desired ‘first-choice’ perception of target audiences and users.

The basic message of the WGBC report was that adopting the latest green thinking and technologies should be a no-brainer, as this would achieve better marketability together with short- and long-term optimum asset value. Real estate development that integrated best practices will be worth more in terms of image and credibility in being able to maintain and increase its value, because of its inherent adaptability and lower running costs. The report outlined the potential advantages for ‘stakeholders’, which it saw simply as developers, owners and tenants. But that’s where the report lost the essential plot, for me, in ignoring the needs and aspirations of the most important audiences, and ultimate force for change – the users!

Real estate users obviously cover a wide range of sectors, from shopping centre consumers, business centre and office employees, residents, hotel guests, city dwellers, visitors and tourists – i.e. all those using buildings and places for their work, rest and play! But no mention was made of the need to step back and reflect on the wider view of these essential ‘stakeholders’, who will use and inhabit green buildings and places. Ignoring this key aspect on achieving more universal acceptance of green building really misses the point and reflects a rather inward-looking approach by building professionals.

Those involved in image and reputation development in creating brand equity know only too well that ‘consumers’ in the widest sense are now the influencers that make things happen and change. Politicians, the media, communities of interest, the local community and the competition are influenced by consumers and create the climate of opinion and social environment that sets the overall agenda for what is good and bad acceptable practice. This provides the market for real estate development. A key stakeholder/influencer is therefore the next generation to achieve real changes in attitudes of an older generation still reluctant to understand the green building advantage. That is real future-proofing strategy, which should be high up on every Green Building Council’s list of priorities.

The real estate sector has to become more customer-centric. Retailers have to be, in order to survive, and are now targeted by their customers, not the other way round. Equally, banks are trying to remember they should respond to customers, not accounts. Some real estate developers have belatedly recognized that they need to be more than simply landlords. Successful shopping centres are based on customer engagement and developers, tenants and, increasingly, the local community, need to work as complementary partners. The aim is to create a first-choice destination venue so the centre and individual tenant experiences combine to achieve a unique offer. Good design is essential to satisfy visitors and the image and reputation benefit of green credentials combined with the direct commercial advantages of lower running costs becomes a positive shared benefit in terms of service charges and centre management costs. Light green and dark green leases are now being talked about and retailers are highly aware of the importance of maintaining their PR green credentials to further differentiate from the competition.

It was a pity the WGC report ignored the retail and shopping centre sector, given this is so clearly consumer-driven, as it represents a complicated set of interests. It would have raised a wider variety of issues to be addressed in what counts as true sustainability, given the changes in the UK for example, where the retail real estate market is undergoing significant changes in terms of adapting or dying.

Only in the very last section of the report are the interests of end users acknowledged – in a less-than-inspiring section headed ‘Workplace Productivity And Health’. Clearly there are major advantages in achieving healthier, more attractive workplace environments, and the commercial logic of appealing directly to the emotional needs of users needs to be addressed, particularly by green building professionals.

Offices should inspire and motivate the users to encourage optimum efficiency. And this raises a potential perceived key weakness of current green building certification in not being able to adequately take into account the aesthetic and emotional benefits of good sustainable design. These are not as easily quantifiable as energy and environmental impact, but user satisfaction can be measured and should be an essential part of any assessment metrics. Green buildings that do nothing for the soul are surely not sustainable in the true sense of the word. Sustainability, for the retail estate sector, should mean developing buildings and places that people seek out to visit, live and work in – surely the ultimate test of future-proofing and real green credentials!

Some lessons from the branding industry would provide added value for those involved in promoting, practicing and certifying in the green sector. Measuring happiness has become a political issue more recently so developing suitable metrics for assessing green development on the basis of end user satisfaction seems long overdue. As an architect, I am highly aware of a original definition of good architecture that reflects ‘Commodity, Firmness and Delight’, based on the principles outlined by the Roman architect Vitruvius. Commodity is about utility and function. Firmness – strength and stability, and Delight – reflecting enjoyment and beauty. If green professionals can focus as equally on delight as well as the measurables of commodity and firmness, then green building can become the mainstream normal it needs to be seen as.

Let’s hope the next Council report will start with an emphasis on consumer satisfaction, which in the end ensures a first-choice positioning and maximum commercial success.

The UK consultation on government plans to introduce mandatory plain packaging for tobacco has highlighted some seemingly perverse views on the power of branding. Today I heard a tobacco industry commentator arguing that attractive brand packaging does not encourage to take up smoking. The interviewer was, not unreasonably, speechless for a moment as this implied the billions previously spent on branding have therefore no effect on smokers’ habit.

The debate previously centred in Australia on the government’s proposed ban on branded cigarette packaging certainly highlighted some interesting legal, ethical and commercial issues.

The starting position is clear. Governments in Australia and the UK are anti-smoking and see it as their public duty to do everything possible to limit and reduce consumption. The proposal is to force the tobacco companies to sell their products in identical drab packaging without logos, with graphic images of smoking related diseases and conditions. Brand names are to be in an agreed standard font on the front of the package.

While this raises issues of the freedom of the individual to harm themselves (nanny state etc.), the comments of the tobacco company executives certainly expose their ultimate belief – that it is packaging that apparently creates the key differentiation, enabling them to charge more for a perceived premium brand. They argue (not surprisingly) that plain packaging will result in pure price comparison. By implication, attractive product dressing is the key added value factor. Maybe the tobacco executives were misquoted, but there was a particularly revealing comment. One executive disclosed how his company would now have to consider differentiation probably “based more on taste to give consumers something they would talk about”. This seems to confirm that cigarettes previously were much of a muchness and it was their packaging image that enabled higher margins, rather than any inherent product quality attributes. While this comes as hardly a surprise to many, it certainly knocks on the head the years of brand promises regarding supposed added value product quality assurance worth paying for. The reality seems to be that these cigarettes provided simply a intangible image advantage for the smoker. This certainly begs fundamental questions of how to create perceived value and develop sustainable brand equity.

The need to display a brand logo is an inherent human trait it seems, whether on a cigarette packet, clothing or cars, to show that the smoker, wearer or driver is a ‘paid up member’ of that particular tribe and social status. A label inside clothing used to be a personal private assurance and was enough to make the wearer feel good or reassured. But now more overt, conspicuous displays of logos and brand names have become desired badges of belonging. Maybe a car without an obvious logo could be an interesting mysterious differentiator, provided that the vehicle in question reflects appropriate qualities of style, design and attributes. OK, I guess that few of us have the confidence or resources to develop ‘one off’s’, but surely that is the ultimate assertion of individuality as a cool, low-key personal brand attribute.

With cigarettes, it seems that branding never strayed far from its roots as simply a packaging led activity. Despite, and presumably because of, the massive investments in pure image rather than product attributes, the cigarette companies are fighting to maintain their carton identities. With that key differentiation removed, the product is left exposed, back to its bare essentials, as potentially just a commodity.

Cigarette companies have in the past recognised the need to develop real and perceived product attributes –menthol, low tar, full strength, special filter, etc. Like virtually every other consumer product, cigarettes have needed to acquire, emotional and rational unique selling points to avoid simply a price led status. Many products have become service brands – chewing gum is a dental treatment and mouth freshener. It could be argued that smoking is a great stress reliever for some and has been portrayed as a special ‘part of your life’ and image. The Australian and UK government would say, it also contributes to your potential death. Interesting times for the branding community…

Apparently we all need to love brands for them to be successful or so a US brand guru tells me. 

Love my local supermarket? – I don’t think so. It happens to be Tesco and I do not know anyone who “loves” Tesco, but it is also the UK’s most successful retailer by far. Equally, I would never love my bank or toilet cleaner – to some degree they are all distress purchases. I need to use them and look for the simplest, most pleasant efficient experience. Almost inevitably, predictably, in the same article we then have a lecture on the joys of Apple as a highly loved brand example. Given no one seems to question the high rate of suicides by workers in China producing iPads, I guess love will always be blind? 

 Another US article then lectures on value being more than just price. I thought we had all been there a long time ago i.e. the obvious price/quality/experience ratio we all make when deciding on real value. Increasing the criteria to include “shared values” from an ethical standpoint would seem appropriate i.e. price/quality/experience/values – but does this mean love?

Read more…

We all talk about brands.We wear them, drive them, eat them, admire them. Everything we do and experience today is a ‘brand experience’ it seems.Sectors and activities have embraced the concept of branding at different rates.FMCG led the way when brands were typically products on the shelf differentiated by packaging.Retailers then realised they were brands not just names and labels and branding then became an experience – involving people, processes, environments and products.This was the fundamental transition of branding from packaging to become an operational culture and management approach.Banks belatedly discovered they had customers to please and are still struggling to understanding how they can be first choice brands.Sadly the real estate sector still generally do not see ‘branding’ as an integral management principle.

Shopping centres are destination brands.They are an umbrella brand for the diverse retailer and service brands they represent and ‘manage’.You would think real estate professionals should then understand the importance of developing the brand equity of their portfolios and projects.This is not the case.They appear to live in a world of tangible measurement and valuations based on yields, rentals, income from commercialisation, etc.They avoid understanding the value of the potentially more intangible activities involving brand building initiatives.

As an architect and brand consultant I have never viewed branding as simply a ‘packaging’ / marketing activity.The architecture and design of a place brand whether a city, district, street, shopping centre or business centre, residential or office is the most expensive but ultimately most influential factor in the sellable brand equity of the development.But still we are typically called in to ‘brand’ a centre already in design or existing by investors who still think branding is simply a ‘badging’, corporate identity exercise supported by marketing activities.

Branding is reputation management.Reputation today is less about the traditional marketing of promises and all about the reality of the experience and what people say about you.Social media is about riding the tiger …. great but tough when it bites you.A business or shopping centre is a business brand and a consumer brand.As a business brand you are measured by the tenants, staff and partners you want to attract and already have.As a consumer brand for business centres, the audiences/stakeholders are the management and employees of the tenant companies.For shopping venues, the audiences are shoppers and visitors, the local community and interest groups.Each audience needs their vested interests satisfied.Matching the needs of pension fund managers and aspirational shoppers is always going to be a balancing act.There is now a blurring between B to B and B to C communications as CSR and sustainability become issues for public debate.

A clear brand proposition and ethos should be the basis for all decisions and action.Everyone wants best value but a long term reputation development can be ruined by a short term tactical initiative to drive footfall or sales.The marketing of centres is still catching up retailer marketing skills.Driving footfall but not helping retailer sales is a typical issue and in the end the capital value of any development is based on sales in the shops.Obvious stuff but investors and developers still don’t apparently see the direct link between brand reputation development and prefer to concentrate efforts on their comfort areas of direct income.Putting in another kiosk rather than some seating is a classic test of a trading or operational mindset.Do you potentially make a shopper stay longer and return another day, or prioritise ‘measurable’ income from a rental space.While belatedly centre manager have talked about being partners of their tenants the mindset can still be as a landlord / facility manager.

We use the term intelligent asset management to drive home the idea that branding must be seen as a fundamental component of real estate development activities from project inception to long term management.An organisation’s internal brand culture is now recognised as a key differentiator influencing the behaviour, efficiency and success of their activities.The complexity of the different parties involved in design and managing real estate demands an alignment and agreement of interests.As in all sectors those that get it will be winners.

Interestingly our work in a BRIC economy like Russia has allowed us to bypass these traditional mentalities and ways of dong things.One advantage is a single owner of a development who can make the decisions necessary.Asking us to provide a brand vision for the development as a brief for the architects whether local or international means the image, themes and positioning become an integral driving idea for the site and building and interior planning and design.We can then provide a distinctive marketing platform to build the centre brand pre-launch and achieve long term sustainable advantage.

In Europe, branding is still often relegated to a brand identity, signage, some graphics and marketing brochure provided by a marketing agency.Moscow has many shopping centres, many built without a clear strategy or mindful of tenant requirements but the growing need for effective differentiation means standards are changing fast and our broad approach to branding is increasingly understood.

Traditionally looking to the west for best practice was typical, perhaps the west could start learning from the East soon!

As a branding and design consultant I am highly aware of the pressures forcing us all to keep ahead of changing market trends. Some areas of design are potentially becoming a commodity with everyone it seems providing ‘design’, whether printers or shopfitters, for example, and more accessible technology enabling individuals to design their own web sites, create their own brochures, etc. Designers need to constantly re-evaluate what they offer and how to stay relevant to fast changing client needs.

Design means change but surprisingly some designers, agencies and consultants find this difficult when the issue is applied to themselves.

One example is the way we design. The trend for increasing internet retailing and digital media is changing the way designers need to think about concept visual development. The era of translating static corporate identities, visual design signatures and branded environments to web communication and screen technology is now potentially in reverse. Designing for animation and the dynamic morphing of visual brand concepts can now become the leading design idea and key brand touchpoint. How this translates to static print, signage and environments then becomes the secondary priority.

This creates interesting challenges for designers trained in classic corporate identity and branding, steeped in the nuances of script, typefaces, graphics and interior design. The next generation of future designers born with a screen in their hand and reared on dynamic imagery from birth must change traditional ways of thinking and designing. The same is happening for marketing professionals coming to terms with the challenges of social media, which is transforming the roles of advertising agencies and the media spend priorities of corporations grappling with the age of instant access and engagement.

The world of design covers a vast range of skills and disciplines with the common link of creativity and innovation. Commercial design, by definition, must meet strategic business criteria. Unfortunately too often ‘creatives’ are seen as the cosmetic guys – dealing with the ‘soft’ emotional and un-measurable aspects of modern business life whether in marketing and communications, or the more tangible design area of architecture, environment design, graphics, corporate identity and product design.

Ultimately design is measured by ‘fitness for purpose’. As an architect I was educated in the ‘form follows function’ school. I still believe this but the functions become more complex. Meeting emotional needs of image, taste and pleasure and the operational criteria of efficiency, cost and time is the true test of any design. Unfortunately in the business world the comfort zones of management tend to be the ‘measurable’ aspects of cost and time. While most managements acknowledge the need to develop their products and services as ‘brands’ and differentiated ‘brand experiences’ they have difficulty in dealing with the creative world of agencies and consultants who sell ‘branding’. I have some sympathy as the conflicting advice and services of branding and design specialists is so often based on the education discipline of the individuals concerned and can typically range from
advertising agencies to management consultancies.

I would like to believe architects should be seen as prime movers in change management. Designing buildings, public spaces and creating relevant places that people want to use, experience and enjoy is a key function of good design. This means change ideally to better solutions, environments and activities. Changing the way people think and act however demands the best skills in communications and combination of emotional and rational intelligence.

An increasingly vital aspect of modern business life is creating a positively differentiated internal company culture. I am increasingly asked to provide talks on the importance of Employer Branding – developing the reputation and image of a company as a ‘first choice’ place to work. In terms of measurability the true costs of staff turnover, loss of management experience, the sheer inefficiency of department silo mentality and de-motivated employees are potentially enormous. The calibre and attitude of customer facing staff is now a key differentiation factor for companies. The effect on sales and the overall company brand equity cannot be overestimated.

In a competitive world of uncertainty, mergers and acquisitions, changing offers and job functions it becomes critical to attract and retain the best staff. Staff centricity should be as important as the standard corporate mantra of customer centricity. Management culture in some developing (as well as so-called developed) markets can be dire but the potential for creating a synergy between external marketing and services and internal communication and environments, is starting to be understood.

The shortage of qualified experienced staff in BRIC economies means poaching is endemic and creates management ambivalence to an investment in training. There are signs that indicate this vicious circle is ending and we see the development of differentiated brand cultures becoming a key future trend and management priority.

The creative sector should be in the forefront of these new aspirations given the need for innovative workplace environments and effective communication across increasingly diverse organisations and working patterns. Workplace design should reflect the company ethos and locality particularly for international operations. Setting a corporate look that must be the same worldwide immediately ignores the fact different cultures, markets and countries look and feel differently about design, colour and imagery. Capturing a company essence and translating to a local mindset is a fascinating challenge but worthwhile to avoid a cloned corporate look disseminated from a remote head office. However, these emotional criteria need to be balanced with practical operational criteria to be cost effective, easily implemented and managed to achieve appropriate consistency and quality. So design functionality needs to meet both the emotional requirement to reflect local mindsets, aspirations and achieve engagement together with the need for satisfying all department agendas, HR and
marketing as well as real estate and finance directors!

Designers by definition should be constantly embracing change and new roles but can be reluctant to move on from the comfort zone of their original training. Today, more than ever, a consistent reality for anyone involved in design in the future is that the winners will be those who recognise and are ready to meet the challenges of managing creative change. A key attribute will be the willingness to embrace and collaborate with a range of like-minded expertise to ensure optimum solutions in order to meet and exceed all expectations.

Clive Woodger

January, 2012